Tuesday, October 23, 2012

3rd Debate: Mitt Romney Says Nothing, Repeatedly

I admit that I have a tendency to talk more about
language than about substance when analyzing political speech, but then again
there isn’t much substance to be had.And besides, the little things matter.Failing to take note of tricks of language and Orwellian efforts at
branding can mean lowering your guard against political manipulation.So I don’t feel bad about picking at nits,
because I believe those nits have a tendency to grow and consume public dialogue
if they aren’t gotten rid of.

There was one talking point in last night’s
presidential debate that I found exceptionally aggravating.It was the point that Mitt Romney made about
the perilous situation that the United States faces in the world because Iran
is now “four years closer” to having a nuclear weapon.Considering that that was repeated four times
over the course of the ninety minutes, it seemed to me that it relied upon the
assumption of an audience that wasn’t really paying close attention.It grabbed my attention as an utterly empty
political slogan the first time it was uttered, and the rest of the audience
had three additional opportunities to get that same impression.

There’s really no other impression to be had.Saying that Iran is four years closer to a
nuclear weapon is like saying that I’m four years closer to a Nobel Prize.Chances are pretty good that I’m not going to
get one of those.I guess you could
argue that even if I don’t, as long as I keep working towards a relevant goal –
writing literature, for instance – I might be closer to having a Nobel Prize
when I die than I am right now.But
speaking more colloquially, if a certain outcome is never going to happen, one
doesn’t get closer to it over time.

Now, in the event that I am going to win a Nobel
Prize, then the hypothetical statement is true.I am four years close to that outcome than I was four years ago.Similarly, if at any point in the future,
under any circumstances, Iran develops and builds a nuclear weapon, then they
are presently four years closer to that outcome than they were four years
ago.That’s
the way time works.Future events
get closer every day.Would a Mitt
Romney presidency unlock some secret of the universe that would allow time to
flow backwards within the borders of one country?Or was this intended as a subtle metaphor for
bombing nations back to the Stone Age?

At this point, I imagine a lot of people will
narrow their eyes disdainfully at me and hiss, “Oh, you know what he meant.”And in a vague sense, yes, of course I
do.Obviously he meant to suggest that
President Obama’s first term allowed the Iranian regime to become materially
closer to having the knowledge and resources required for building a nuclear
weapon.But I don’t know what Romney
meant by “four years closer,” presumably because “four years closer” doesn’t
mean anything.It’s the vaguest and
least substantive way he could have phrased what he was trying to say, and
since it was repeated four times over, that must have been deliberate.

If Romney had had a substantive claim to make
about a worsening Iranian threat resulting from an Obama presidency, he had
ample opportunity to make it.He didn’t.That’s not to say that there’s no such
argument to be made, but it does suggest that Romney’s claims relied on bullshit
– a disregard for the truth value of what he was saying, in favor of whatever
would serve his ends if it happened, incidentally, to be true.

That behavior is quite in keeping with Romney’s
entire approach to his campaign.Typically, he seems to accomplish this exploitation of politically
convenient narratives by plainly reversing position, or by outright lying.Now, with the third debate, he seems to have
uncovered the perfect means of utilizing bullshit, which is by making claims
that cannot be contradicted because they provide absolutely no information,
even as they sound damning for the opposing party.I suppose that in that way Romney has
succeeded in emulating Reagan.

The public cannot allow such casual disregard for
truth or rational argumentation to stand as a relevant political tactic.We cannot allow politicians, corporations, or
anyone else to believe that they can sway us by branding and rhetoric alone,
without having to appeal to factual data or to be transparent about their own
views.Such dialogue will only improve
if we hone our ability to parse it and separate it and call out the
bullshit.We’re failing in that
responsibility if Mitt Romney believes he can say four times in the same debate
that we’re four years closer to the future, and have that somehow count in his
favor.

Subscribe and Be Broken

About Me

I live my life in search of breaking points. It is only on the other side of them that I feel truly alive. It is only by breaking that I can build myself anew and develop as a person. I expect the same of society as a whole. Everything may come to a breaking point - a realization, a numerical, material, or emotional tipping point after which what has gone before can no longer be sustained. These are some of the breaking points I'm looking for.